Or, are religions merely indoctrination machines that remove all forms of rational thought and logic only to replace them with immoral irrational beliefs that cause the person to say and do very stupid things to the point of fighting and causing wars.

If you study some Sumerian mythology then you find that there was never one God..with them being the oldest known Civilization, I give them some credit in that respect.

Believing there is only one God, and that God is love, when the very book you swear it by says otherwise, is highly contradictory. People will however, always believe whatever helps qualm their fears as they do not wish to face them. Much like the witch trials that lasted a lot longer then what most want to believe. Many believe it started with The Malleus Malificarum, which it didn't. That book only caused it to be more justified then what it was before. Which is to say, it became a great excuse to kill your neighbour or enemy and take what they had.

The Sumerians claim they were taught civilization by those gods. Their stories describe them as human in form, walking the earth, male and female, and immortal.

Contrary to popular belief, it's pretty evident in pre-flood Genesis other humans already populated the earth when Adam was created. Genesis 6 explains that the humans that Adam's people started having children with were mortal and only live 120 years, right after listing lifespans in the 8 and 900's for Adam's descendants.

That's what Abraham was trying to get across to his people. There's only one God, not the multitude of gods their forefathers across the river worshiped. Abraham was from Ur, a Sumerian city.

The Sumerians built the first cities to ever exist with populations in the tens of thousands. They also were the first to establish a monarchy, they invented the first calendars and were the first to practice agriculture year-round. They also invented writing. Their surplus of food established the first economy. And they say they were taught this by their gods. Their physical gods that inhabited the temples their cities were built around.

Genesis 4 says Cain, who was a farmer but was cursed and unable to grow food for himself, built a city. Not much of a city if Cain and his family were the only inhabitants. But just before this Cain mentions his fear of being killed by 'whoever' he may run into while wondering the 'land of nod'. A concern God validated by marking him to protect him.

The Sumerian stories say their gods taught them civilization before the great 'Deluge', or flood. They say five Sumerian cities existed before the flood.

Genesis 4 lists 7 generations of Cain's descendants, explaining that 3 of those 7th generation 'fathered' all of those who lived in tents and herded animals/ played stringed instruments/ and made metal tools. All these things the Sumerians did.

7 is the same number of generations Methuselah was from Seth in Genesis 5, and he died the same year as the flood, probably in it. So, Genesis 4 probably only lists 7 generations of Cain's descendants because they were most likely wiped out in the flood as well, which would make the mention of them 'fathering' anybody pointless if everyone died in a global flood. This, as well as the mention of both pre-flood and post-flood existence of the 'Nephilim' (Gen6/Num13) makes it apparent the flood wasn't global and that people survived.

Adam and his family existed on the earth for 1656 years before the flood. Each of them living lifespans 7 and 8 times longer than 'mortal humans'. Eridu, the first pre-flood Sumerian city and the site where the Sumerians claim the gifts of civilization were 'passed down from heaven', was built around 5300 BC.

Both the Egyptians and the people of the Indus Valley culture in India showed rapid advancements in technological capabilities around 3500 and 3400 BC. Descendants of Noah were dispersed in all directions from Babel about 100 years after the flood. 1800 years is roughly the same amount of time that passed between when Eridu was built and when Sumer again began to thrive and Egypt and the Indus Valley advanced considerably.

Each of Noah's descendants were 'of Eve', so they all had the same free will. They also each had their own language and knowledge of farming and civilization. Flood stories are echoed in many ancient civilizations. The Sumerians also wrote about the confusing of a once universal language as well as a story about a man who built a boat to save a handful of people and a bunch of animals from a huge flood.

From there civilization spread all throughout Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa. Along with it spread free will, planted into the bloodline of early humans all around the world over the past few thousand years. Since then, humans with free will have come up with all kinds of reasons to kill and burn witches and do all kinds of really ugly things that completely contradict what God said to do. Sometimes using the bible as justification.

No offence is meant to you by this, because I understand that you are more than likely Christian. However, the bible does NOT count as a historical truth. The Sumerian mytho's are actually quite different than what your trying to make out. You would have to find the only copy of what they believed that we have. It is known as the Maklu Text if I'm not mistaken.

You mention pre-flood Genesis, however this is only if your following the bible and only the bible. Take out the bible and nothing of what your saying is supported. Going a step further, we have proven that the world is millions of years old, and we have found human remains that prove as much. Following biblical beliefs, men were the "mysterious" elves of the of the fantasy world with unnatural long lives. They even say that a man is still alive, body and soul and was taken to Heaven. Or perhaps this might be written off as an excuse for the belief in Zues by some. Elijah I believe it was, was carried off in a fiery chariot over a mountain to never be seen again.

Unfortunately, The bible promotes all sorts of magic and myth's of it's own accord. People are likely to read only want they want so that they can feel safe and secure. In doing so, you foster a false belief. I hold no such illusions about what we are and where we came from. I can use the bible to support anything and everything that exists in the world. At the same time, I can use the bible to show how anything and everything is a slight against the Christian God. However, I do have a question for you. How can a God of Love and Mercy be a God of Vengance, Spitefulness, and promote Murder?

I don't see how any God who could claim to be a God of love could do such things.

How can a parent be a parent of love and yet do some of the things they do?Love is not something that overlooks everything. Love is not an emotion that just loves and watches its child walk out in front of a mac truck.

Love wears many hats. Love protects what it loves. When cleaning out the attic some things get tossed and others kept but its not love that does the tossing, the love is in the keeping.

Love does wear many hats, However it doesn't wear the hats of bigotry and hate. It also doesn't wear the hat of murder. A God that promotes hate, bigotry, and murder is no God for me. That same God can also NEVER be a God of love, not for any reason. A God of love wouldn't promote such things. A God of love would promote acceptance and understanding.

So a parent protecting a child from a burglar would not consider murder? So a parent wouldn't hate the boyfriend who is a crack head? So a parent wouldn't hate some hari krishna on the door... Sorry for the poor examples but i hope it gets my point across. You agree many hats but then you ignore the scope of that.What does God hate?How is God a bigot?Whom did God murder?Once you pull all this into proper perspective you will notice that love is behind all of it.

So the parent has to promote acceptance of what? stealing, theft, cheating, drug use, and the parent has to understand.. its only drug abuse, its only an abortion, its only teenage pregnancy, its only herpes its only what, what, what,... you need to redefine your statements and account for a larger picture.

God hates other Gods. (Thou shalt put no Gods before me)God hates gay people. God hates witches. (Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live)God hates Sorcery.God hates Idols. ( or sculpture as it is now known)God hates gentials. (meaning at that time anyone not Jewish)Should I really go on with this? These things are listed in the bible that you adore so much.

Hating anyone for being different is bigotry. That is the reason the KKK is one of most hated sects on the planet. Not mention they have now become a Church unto themselves.

How about his own son? How about over 9,000,000 people in the course of the Witch hunt in which his name was invoked. How about over 1,000,000 other people during the crusades which was again done in his name. Since you love the bible so much, how about all the Egyptians he killed in the sea when he allowed it to collapse over them? All because they were following orders or because it's what people believed he wanted by what's in the bible. You cannot take on only part of what's happened and ignore the rest, which is what you are choosing to do. The things done in his name are things that in some point in the bible he marked as needing done. Either you believe or you don't. There is definitely more reason not to then to do so.

The parent should always try to accept and understand. If your child is gay you should accept it, not try to beat it out of them because God says it's wrong. You talk of looking at the larger picture, yet you mention only a small portion of the over all picture. These things aren't thing to happen to everyone on a daily basis. In fact, the statics say that it happens to a very very small percent of the over all population. Focusing in on a smaller picture doesn't promote things that happen in the over all picture. Self-defence is not murder. Self-defence is any act of violence used to protect your self and others. However dragging someone out of their home, tying them to a huge wooden stake, and setting them on fire is out right murder. Beating and even trying to kill people for being gay, is not self-defence.

My statements perfectly reflect the larger picture. What you don't take into account is that your swearing by a book that was created for a certain sect of people and only those people. It contains over 600 laws that they are to follow and live their lives by everyday. It was not EVER meant to be given unto the masses as they will interpret things how they see fit. Something that I have watched many Christians do since I was kid.

I am familiar with Sumerian mythology. The Sumerians believed they were created by the Annunaki to serve them because that's what they did. The Sumerians were always on the outside looking in, trying to understand these gods. They were moody and unpredictable. The Sumerians actually became the first astronomer/astrologers in an attempt to understand these gods because they associated them with the heavens.

Differences in details in their stories, like their description of a box-shaped ark, versus the detailed description of a very much sea worthy vessel in the stories of the children of Israel, is an example of people on the outside trying to explain these beings as they understood them. Many of the broad strokes of these stories are very similar, but the details in the stories of the children of Israel are much more fleshed out and grounded.

If you take away the possibility of a God, or gods, then you still have the unexplained rapid advancements that gave rise to civilization. We know it happened, but don't know how. Many of the key advancements that facilitated civilization came about before writing, so accumulated knowledge can't explain it. There are theories that attempt to explain it by suggesting things like higher protein intake that may have advanced their minds or higher population density that might have attributed to the sharing of ideas. But both of these situations can be seen in other civilizations elsewhere that didn't accomplish anything nearly as impressive as what the Sumerians did.

To try to put it in perspective, think of it this way. The Sumerians created the first civilization roughly 7000 years ago. Assuming a generation is 20 years, there are 5 generations per century, or 50 generations per millennium. So, we're talking about just 350 generations between us and them. The Sumerians transitioned from hunter/gathers and early farmers to civilization within about 10 to 20 generations. Yet there's no progression that can be seen to explain it. The same goes for the Egyptians and the Indus Valley culture in India. Rapid advancements with no progression to illustrate how they did it. We just know it happened quickly. Go to the source, they say they were taught. They don't give credit to their ancestors.

I can illustrate how Genesis 1 accurately describes 6 major eras in earth's history including 13 specific details that are listed in the correct order. It manages to describe events that happened millions and billions of years before any life existed, and manages to do so with a 'from the surface' perspective. I have a hub that shows this in detail. This is something that could only be recognized in the past couple of decades as we only just now understand earth's geological and biological history well enough to see it. Yet these same desert dwellers that proved to be knowledgeable of large water vessels before anyone else also managed to get creation right.

The Sumerian's believed there was one supreme deity and that all Gods and Goddess were given by this deity a certain function. This includes the God of the Christians. They have it written that the son of Marduk was sent unto 72nd Nation in order rule over and protect them. The same was actually recorded in the original Israeli tradition. Today it has been forgotten and changed into Christianity. This is not to take away from Christianity in anyway.

From our oldest Civilization then we can gather that the Nations either formed of their own accord, or were formed by many and not one. Either way it is all mythology and none of it can be proven, so does it really make any difference? I don't think so. I prefer to live in the here and now. What happened then and what may happen in the future doesn't matter to me. I live here and now and that's all I can make decisions on.

Marduk wasn't around until the latter part of the second millennium BC. He was a late-generation patron deity of Babylon. What I'm talking about, before the great deluge, happened at least a thousand years before the stories of Gilgamesh were even written, which were a thousand years before Marduk.

During Marduk's time, Egypt and the Indus Valley culture were already well established, as well as civilization in Asia, all well outside of Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian jurisdiction. Very little is known about the Israelites during this time. The first mention of them is a small blurb in an Egyptian tablet dating back to 1200 BC.

Much like the children of Israel, very little is known about the Books of Moses historically. The oldest surviving copies only date back to the 3rd century BC. Our best scholarly estimations place them as being written between the time of the kingdom of Judah (950 BC) and Babylonian exile (450 BC). Obviously, considering similar stories were told way back in 2700 BC by the Sumerians, the stories are much older. Fact is, nobody knows for certain.

However, to simply dismiss it as nothing more than myth I think is a mistake. The creation account alone should be enough to make skeptics reconsider. As I said before, it correctly describes earth's geological and biological history as if witnessed from the surface. And not some vague explanation. A very detailed account.

It manages to describe the state of the earth during the late Hadean eon about 4 billion years ago in verse 2. The earth's surface was covered with oceans and a thick atmosphere blocked out the sun. Just after God says 'let there be light' it then describes the establishment of a firmament, which in those days was the term to describe the blue dome of the sky, by saying God separated the waters above from the waters below. This coincides with the Archean eon when the earth's water cycle was established and our oxygenated atmosphere first formed. Both of which required sunlight, so we know that somewhere during the late Hadean and early Archean, light first broke through to the surface as the cloud cover condensed. And right between is when God called for light.

It goes on to describe the formation of land (2.5 mya), plantlife (530 mya), the setting of the sun/moon/stars in the sky to enable seasons and to track days and years, which coincides with the continents working their way back up to the side of the planet from deep in the southern hemisphere between 550 and 350 mya where the sun would pivot around the horizon for 6 months, followed by 6 months of darkness. The continents moving back between the earth's poles proved important because next it describes life coming from the sea (350 mya) all the way through birds (150 mya), which includes every modern animal in the Sauropsid category.

Then it describes life coming from the land, which coincides with the left turn evolution took with mammals, the Synapsids (65 mya). Then describes the creation of humans (2.4 mya - homo erectus), followed by specific commands that describe exactly what early humans did all the way through about 10,000 BC (homo sapiens). They were fruitful and multiplied, they populated and subdued the earth, and established themselves as the dominant species across the entire planet.

We only recently have learned enough about the earth's history to recognize just how right the creation account is. For many centuries faith was required as there's no way anyone could have known. Now it's different. Now we know enough to know just how accurate it is. This alone makes it kind of hard to believe Genesis is nothing more than mythology.

You realise how right creation account is. Presuming to speak for everyone is just going to show how wrong you actually are.

As for dismissing it all as myth, I can easily do so. There is no proof of any of it, therefore it is all myth. Not complicated. Simple, precise, and to the point. To believe in something just because it has a good description is utterly ludicrous. We could easily believe just about anything I have read if we used that perspective. It cannot be proven or disproven but it has a good description so perhaps I should go with it?

It's just as important to realise what your implying as it is to saying what your trying to get out.

We, as in we the human race, now understand enough about the earth's history to either prove the creation account accurate or finally disprove it completely as it specifically says what it's an account of. It list 6 major eras in order, and 13 specific details in order. It's not simply how I choose to read it. It takes a level of delusion just as high as many here claim believers to be to dismiss it. To ignore it is to ignore a potential source of information to help us really understand who we are and where we come from. You may choose to ignore it, but that doesn't make it wrong. That simply means your mind is already made up.

I actually haven't made my mind up about any of it, I just don't see where any of it actually matters. You can go with the creationist theory and assume the bible completely accurate. In doing so you also assume that everyday is equal to the length of each and every era it took to get to the point of humanity. The bible says that it took 6 days and only 6 days to create the world and all those in it. It doesn't say that it took periods of over 6,000 years to do. Your argument, though some may consider it valid, has too many holes in it. Science has not proven the creationist theory. Neither has darwins theory of evolution been proven, though we do know that evolution is possible and probable. The truth is however, no one will ever know for certain short of building a machine to travel through time and watching it from the beginning. Even still, it's likely that they won't know the truth. Much like scientists find what they expect to find, a believer in anything will find ways to try and make the truth apparent to anyone. It's all nothing more than a pointless argument in order to try to convince ourselves and others that we are right. Why waste the time? There is more to do in life then argue pointless situations with information that goes both ways.

Whether I participate in the argument or not, the argument will continue until an ultimate truth is found. This is a divisive element. Western society is divided over it. And the overall discussion only seems to grow more beligerent, on both sides. To me there is nothing more important.

While evolution is an unproven theory, the fossil record that it's largely based on is not. Much like the geologic timeline of earth's history. The theory part of the equation is our attempt to explain 'how'. The geologic timeline given here is widely accepted, confirmed across multiple fields of science. Everything from soil samples to climatological evidence to dna evidence to the fossil record confirms the same approximate timeline.

As for the days, each 'day' is basically written like this ...- God says 'Let there be (X)'- It was so- God saw that it was good- God gives name or blessing- And the evening and the morning were the (Y) day

To read that to mean that all of those things happened during the course of a single day is only one way to interpret it. Even the word translated as day here (Yom) in Hebrew is also used as Time, Year, Age, Ago, Always, Season, Ever, Evermore... elsewhere. It can mean the 12 light hours of the day, it can mean a 24 hour period, or it can mean an indeterminant amount of time according to Hebrew dictionaries. Similar to how we use the word 'day' today, like 'back in the day'.

Or, that same series could be read to mean that after all these things were done, and He saw that it was good and blessed or named it, that the following evening and morning were the (Y) day, as in the first day of a new age or era. Like the first day of a new era of earth with an oxygenated atmosphere, or with plantlife on land, or birds in the sky.

Besides, this was written to be relevant to humans from thousands of years ago when they had no way of knowing, or even grasping, the difference. To them, whether it was 6 days prior to the centuries that passed, or 4 billion, was irrelivant to them. As it would be to anyone who lived before this age.

As for the rest of the bible, I won't try to convince it's legitimate. I believe it is, but that's a whole other conversation. But I do think what I'm trying to illustrate here should at least be considered before declaring anything with absolute certainty.

I can declare with absolute certainty that how the world started does not effect the next decision that I choose to make. Nor will it affect anyone elses. There is no reason to continue an argument, especially amongst those where the power belief stifles everything else for them. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the power of belief is such that it is uncompromising. You try to reconcile science and your beliefs, the problem is it cannot successfully be done. One of the reasons for science being allowed by the Church was to try and establish that the Bible and everything in it was 100% real. We have found since that time that it cannot be done. You can believe or not, but it is a choice each person must make. Whatever your choice is, I have no problem with it. I do not argue for or against things either way. I do however test the convictions of others. Why? Because there is too much information on all side to not punch holes in it in an attempt to find even a slight bit of truth.

It's not how the world started that I'm suggesting should be considered. It's the fact that somehow people near the dawn of civilization in both time and location described events over the course of billions of years as if it were told to them by someone standing on the surface of the earth watching it all happen.

I'm not interested in arguing just to argue. Like you, I'm punching holes in things to find the truth. I'm standing here on my own little island in between the majority of believers and non-believers, with the majority of both parties completely resistant to what I'm trying to point out, punching holes in the views of both sides that don't hold up.

I'm not doing this to win a popularity contest and I'm not doing this to try to convert non-believers. I'm trying to point out how a small adjustment to how Genesis is read traditionally lines up both historically and scientifically, and appears to be deliberately explaining the very birth of civilization and how mankind came to be as we know it today.

If I'm right then others need to know about this as this has profound implications that could resolve a lot of conflict and could go a long way towards helping us all understand who we are, where we come from, and why we're here. And if I'm wrong then I've become incredibly delusional. Either way I need to bounce these ideas off of others. To test it. To make sure it's sound. The more I do, the more I find it stands up to scrutiny and manages to clarify a lot of notoriously elusive things.

I'm not here to argue and I'm not here to teach, I'm here to learn. The best way I've found to learn is to have discussions with people who don't agree with me.

It all depends on how you look at it really. You saying the bible gives perfect account and therefore should be considered at least in part to be true. However ancient astronaut theorists give considerable proof that at least there were aliens and that they told us of such things. Should they be considered as true as well? They do have a lot of legitimate evidence to back it up, but it doesn't mean we believe or agree with them. Every religion and mythology gives a similar account of how things began. The problem is, mainly when dealing with religion and the ideal that only one can be right and true, that if one is true, then they all have to be true. Which does nothing but start a war over who's god is mightier. Whether your right or wrong isn't necessary. If you believe you are right then do so and carry it with you. Proving it will only prove others right as well which does nothing but create a big problem. Sometimes it is just better to keep silent about what you know, everyone doesn't need to know everything. It's the only thing that I agree with Government and the Vatican on.

Ancient astronaut theorists are keying in on the same rapid advancements seen in both the ancient Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations that natural progression alone proves inadequate to fully explain. Like you said, they provide considerable proof with legitimate evidence, enough to make normally intelligent rational people jump to such a far-fetched conclusion.

As for other creation myths, please refer me to any other legend or mythological tale of creation that can match what really happened so exactly. I would love to know more, but have yet to find anything that fits that bill myself.

This all or nothing mentality you speak of as far as proving one belief to be accurate meaning that all are right doesn't really apply here. If we were to somehow prove scientifically the existence of a god, then that might apply. But if something as specific as Genesis is proven accurate, something that talks about one particular God in great detail, then that doesn't apply at all. Then you only have the religions based on the books of Moses left, and they all already fight over who's right. No change there.

But what I'm trying to illustrate goes a long way towards revealing the whole fire and brimstone element introduced by organized religions as a way to control the masses to be nothing more than a scare tactic. This view simply shows the more barbaric actions illustrated in the Old Testament to have a very real and very necessary purpose. Basically, free will was running amuck. Free will is by design outside of God's control. He doesn't override our decisions and control outcomes, but He does do what's necessary for the good of mankind.

As for your comment about keeping any bit of the truth silent, I can't agree with that. People deciding on their own that they somehow know better than everyone else to decide on their own accord what others can and can't know is a big part of our problem already. Organized religions and governments both have made that mistake.

And I can't accept that you whole-heartedly believe that. You're obviously an intelligent guy who's search for truth seems very much sincere. It's apparent that you do your own homework to find real meaning in all the nonsense. Holding any actual truth back only does a disservice to people like me and you who are earnestly searching for answers. Witholding some key bit of truth could lead us astray to inaccurate conclusions all because somebody decided on their own accord to just keep silent about something they know to be true.

We did look to science, and science has confirmed that Genesis was right all along. And only very recently. And beyond that, science has actually managed to clarify it. It now makes more sense than ever before.

Early Genesis has always been a mystery, even to most of those who lived in 'biblical times'. Pharisees, for example, that's all they did. They'd try to make sense out of the more cryptic bits of the books of Moses. None were more cryptic than early Genesis. The context wasn't clear. Now, through science, we have established the proper context in which these stories are set and it's not nearly so cryptic. It's rather clear.

I know you won't accept it. That would be a rather jarring realization for you. I understand that. I've seen many try to pick apart my claim, only to become as irrational as a young earth creationist by the end trying to reject it. It's just too obvious once it's been pointed out.

@HeadlyvonNoggin - The Myan and Incan mythologies as well as the Sumerian directly match Genesis. And considering the education Moses was required to have as an Egyptian Prince, it's likely that he derived all of Genesis from what he knew from the Sumerian and Egyptian religions. Just because it seems accurate though, doesn't make it right.

@thatguyCm - I still wonder whether or not the books accredited to Moses were actually written in a language that the Jews knew. Moses was highly educated being an Egyptian Prince, but he would not have been allowed to learn what was considered a "slave" language, which would include writing. Just something I ponder over myself.

Your question has a pair of massive assumptions which empty it of anything outside of theological debate or drunken bar arguments. They are:

1. You assume that there is a "God" to "created nations and religions" and that he then "made them fight."

So,before we can even begin talking about this, you have to solve the eternal and unsolvable ultimate ontology: is there a god? Good luck proving that. Then, if you can prove that there is one, you have to prove that he took the time to write stupid, flawed, contradictory stories and, beyond that, then enticed people to kill each other over the absurdities in whichever one of the books he chose to bequeath unto those people's particular geographical and temporal moment in history. Etc.

2. So, let's pretend the massive gaping problem of number one is not there, and we just assume there is a God. Plus, let's pretend there aren't thousands of religions and thousands of belief systems that have come and gone, and that all the religions that still exist recently (we'll call it the last 2,000 years to refine it down to a small, recent number), your question then goes on to impose on that god somehow is consumed with the childish dedication to making people fight, forming up controversial religions, and all that other rot, as if He were some "reality TV" director totally requiring A) the attention of the dumb monkey people that we are, and B) attention at all, which seems pathetic beyond the realm of an actual God ... or at least of a God worthy of worship etc.

Well, you have decided to "believe" that the thing you FEEL must be real is real. So, everything that follows for you is bound to that BELIEF.

Which is great.

If a belief makes you happy, then go for it.

My thing is that, as culture, we don't encourage our kids to continue believing there is a monster in the closet.

We, for whatever reason, don't encourage our kids to keep buying to the Santa Claus thing. The tooth fairy... all the other things we so easily concoct to explain away events that are too complex for some given state of human development.

But, since death is scary and human nature is violent and mainly f-ed up, we do, as a species, seek super natural easy answers once we get beyond tooth loss and socially cohesive holiday events. Which is great, if you can simply eat what you are fed. I would not take that easy-earned peace from you if you can live with it.

My problem is that I ask too many questions. I don't like easy answers, even easy answers shrouded in "complexity."

I actually envy you your conviction. I'd love to have the answers and have it all solved. Totally.

Sorry i didn't reply to this sooner. I haven't been doing very well for the last few months. Anyway ...

You are right that I have decided that the thing that I "feel" is real. This happened only after a decade and a half of dissecting, and analyzing what is actually written in OT prophesy. Attempting to prove my theories wrong. I'm not talking about what "IS" reality; but about what is really written in prophesy. Cause churches are teaching it without even trying to understand it.

You said "If a belief makes you happy, then go for it".The thing is; that is true for everyone. Everyone has beliefs which they cling to. And those beliefs affect their lives in every way.

That easily attained piece which you refer to didn't come so easily.

You said "My problem is that I ask too many questions. I don't like easy answers, even easy answers shrouded in "complexity."

I am the same way. Unfortunately there are some simple answers such as e=mc2 and yet to explain how this is true can seem quite complicated. Attempting to explain how every strand of a spider web is connected can become unimaginable complex though it appears so simple when looking at it.

You said "I actually envy you your conviction. I'd love to have the answers and have it all solved. Totally".

You wouldn't want all the answers to the mysteries of live!That would take all the fun out of it the same way that we can examine our love for someone or something to death.

1) God created nations because when the world was able to band together, everyone (more or less) turned against Him. It was a sign of power, true, but also a sign that He exists.

2) God did not create "religions." He created Judaism. Human beings (or satan, if you believe in him) came up with all others.

3) God did not "make" the nations go to war. People have always done that and people always will. If God had not created nations, eventually people would have done it themselves because of certain power-hunry individuals. And Hitler and Saddam Hussein did not need religion to want power.

1.) If all nations were ever banded together, at any point history, all the legends of the beginning of the world would be exactly the same.

2.) God didn't create Judaism. Depending on which version you follow, it started with Abraham or with Moses, it didn't start with God.

3.) People always attack what they are afraid of. People encroaching on the lands in which your people live, is reason to be scared and is a reason to start wars. There have been many people who have taken armies against other armies on their borders. The problem is, when you defeat an army and claim those lands, you'll always have another army on the border. Things are different today, but not by much.

God created humans with free will. Humans with free will created politics, government, religion, nations, and war.

Free willed beings want to do what they want and go where they want. The problem is, every other free willed being does too. The more dense a population the more conflict arises. Power extends the will. Money or strength or political influence, all extend the will. When the will wants more than it needs, others get hurt in the process. Free will is a power gift.

Harvesting wheat and separating the chaff is never easy. Man made the wars, man made the nations. They went forth conquering and to coquer, despite the concept of not coveting your neighbor's stuff. Man insisted on it. Jesus said that he came to bring division and a sword. What? Was he gonna pick his teeth apart with the sword?

It's pretty clear He's not talking about violence or aggression or teeth picking. He said that in Matthew 10 where He's sending his disciples out as 'sheep among wolves' to spread the news. He's explaining that the message they're passing along through their good works will cause division. It will cause conflict. He's warning them that bringing news that God has sent his son to earth to be it's savior is not going to bring about world peace and brotherly love. Obviously, he knew what he was talking about.

In response to this "gift" called free will. Ever since I was young I could never grasp this notion that "God" gave humans free will. Doesn't every mammal on Earth already have free will, and Who gave it to them? I idea that God would give his beloved children this very dangerous "power" just makes no sense! To me, the "gift of free will" is an invitation to self destruction.I would like to think that any entity I might pray to is in fact perfect, and does not make poor judgements like giving out free will to humans, because at our core we are still just moments away from a million years of cave dwelling.

For Example:

Children have free will, but they are not allowed to act on it because they have caring parents who hope to see them live to adulthood. You wouldn't allow a two year old child to run around the deep end of the pool unsupervised. That would be considered "horribly irresponible". In the same sense - Setting humans free on the Earth to run willy nilly and enjoy free will, to me, just seems like very poor parenting. God should be better than that, right?

But the whole point is the next life. The long one. The one that Jesus was sent to ensure it was possible to reach. Not this one. This one's a handful of decades, then it's over. The other is eternal. That's the priority.

Like in your example, the comparison to a Father/child parental relationship between us and God is a common theme throughout the bible. He's teaching us. He created an entire existence just to let free will run reckless. And it has. We're children learning by example exactly what not to do.

Like you said, free will is a powerful, dangerous thing. We can seldom comprehend the full magnitude that any one of our actions can have on others, much less the whole of existence. To ever be capable of wielding such a powerful ability as free will would require a level of wisdom and understanding that just can't be explained. We have to live it. Experience is the best teacher.

It is truly an absurd idea to spend whatever time we have on this earth trying to get ready for an event that we have no evidence will occur, and in fact have fairly good circumstantial evidence will not occur - i.e., life after death.

There simply is no basis for the assumption that our consciousness will live on after the brain ceases activity. Do you remember what you were doing prior to birth? For that matter, have you ever had surgery? If you have been under anesthesia, then you should be aware that it is totally possible with drugs to block out all consciousness.

If anesthesiologists can end your conscious awareness by administering some versed, how much easier must it be for death to deny you of consciousness when brain activity ceases?

All research indicates that there are areas of the brain, which if stimulated, cause the hallucinations associated with out of body experiences and astral projection experiences, indicating these are not real events.

With all the evidence pointing against further life after death, it seems to me that belief in life after death is more simply a hope based on childlike fears of the unknown than a well thought out philosophical position.

If we take God out of the equation then of course there might not be life after death. If we put God in the equation then of course there is life after death. Life after Death cannot be separated from God, because as God has been around for a very very very long time, there must certainly be 'a long life' and if no life, then why bother training people to be more godlike, for then surely it does not matter how a man lives if his last stop is the grave.But when God is found and shows himself to be real we can then hollar out loud " there is an afterlife!" and this is all that is needed to believe in afterlife - is first an experience with God.So we need not be to philosofickle to tie the two together.

In response to this "gift" called free will. Ever since I was young I could never grasp this notion that "God" gave humans free will. Doesn't every mammal on Earth already have free will, and Who gave it to them?

That would be instinct. Animals have instinct. Animals do not have free will as humans do. There is a huge difference.

I idea that God would give his beloved children this very dangerous "power" just makes no sense! To me, the "gift of free will" is an invitation to self destruction.

First we have to consider what life would be like without the ability to choose then after that we have to consider the ramifications that occur from the choices people make. Now we can see that choice is not so much destructive as the person who wields the choice, then we can see that life without choice would be a ridiculous alternative.

That would be considered "horribly irresponsible". In the same sense - Setting humans free on the Earth to run willy nilly and enjoy free will, to me, just seems like very poor parenting. God should be better than that, right?

God gave us parents to see that we did not run around unsupervised while at the pool, don't forget their are lifeguards also. We need to understand the meaning of value. God loves us intrinsically, not instrumentally. We have value if we do things ourselves and less value if we are just programmed to run a set of instructions.

My dear Winston, you seem to not understand the idea of faith. Faith consists quite substantially on acceping something which is difficult to belief like for example, the idea of life after death. When Jesus came to earth he requested those people who couldn't belief that he is the Messiah to base it on faith. Some people easily believed him. Others struggled to accept him as the promised messiah. Some did not at all accept him.

In short, it's up to you to believe or disbelieve. Jesus gave people the choice to decide whether they follow him as their Messiah or not. So, if you think there is substantial evidence against life after death, then you are free to live your life as if there is nothing after you die.

(My dear Winston, you seem to not understand the idea of faith. Faith consists quite substantially on acceping something which is difficult to belief like for example, the idea of life after death)

douggy,

I understand quite well the idea of faith - it is based on hope and fear. Fear of intractable problems and hope that there is a supernatural superhero who will make the problems go away. Much like faith that the act of closing the eyes tightly and hiding the head under the blankets will prevent the closet monster from appearing. Got it.

Faith does not mean the idea is right, though. In fact, it is likely not right as faith is based on nothing but emotive reactions to fears rather than being based on good evidence or sound reasoning.

But, regardless of good evidence or sound reasoning, you suggest that we should accept on faith - as being accurate enough to base our lives on - the words in a book that are simply retold oral legends about a Jewish rabbi of the 1st century, stories that come from the same book that teaches us that the cure for bacterial-caused leprosy is not antibiotic therapy but is instead the sacrificial killing of a pair of doves, the sprinkling of their blood throughout the house, and finally burning the corpses? You would have us believe that the misinformation about leprosy should not dissuade us from belief in what this book says about the rabbi, though.

Well, for sure, that takes a mountain of faith.

And I suppose your faith had you killing two doves to cure the leprosy that infected your Aunt Wanda? So, how did that work out, douggy? Is Aunt Wanda still cured? Or is she dead and buried and gone - with no life after death?

Well, yes, that seems a reasonable idea. I would indeed like to know before I jump from the bridge spanning the Royal Gorge that the invisible bungie cord you claimed you tied around my waste was real and would not allow me to fall.

So, you first, chum.

(Did the two turtledoves work in the OT - obviously - its written isn't it.)

And while you're down there, better pick up a couple of doves - I hear they also heal broken backs and splattered brains.

First off you are not jumping off a bridge. You are testing the waters so to speak. You make it sound like believing in God is like putting your head in a vice and squeezing out all the common sense, it is certainly not like jumping off a bridge - even if you survived - would you credit God.

I don't know about broken backs and splattered brains i assume that is just sarcasm?I don't see where my post warranted such a response but I guess thats okay.

Also concerning the house... leprosy was more a generic term for more than just leprosy, the leprosy of the house is more like a mold - i guess comparable to but not exactly like "black mold" that is in houses today.Leprosy was also used to describe psoriasis.This is why the priests spent time checking out the 'leprosy' sometimes it was contagious, which would be actual leprosy, other times it was not contagious, hence psoriasis.

Again we have an instance of people going through a prescribed routine for some purpose. Will blood remove mold? I dunno... Maybe its a certain type of mold that is susceptible to blood but in this case as in all cases of the OT, most things were done for a type or shadow of something greater and oft times it was God's power that produced the outcome - the people just had to be obedient. Kinda like Jericho's walls that came a tumblin down - its an exercise of faith.

So we would decide to get along! Accept the differences and appreciate the beauty in each other, insisting we be all the same and be clones of one another. We only choose war because we been brain washed that it is acceptable. Just look at the violence in our television programs, music industry, media, books we read, people in society just don't want to give up war. They love the violence. Hate saying that, but even when you go to sports events you fight over the teams, the referee, the coaches, the players. Politics you fight over social problems. Religion you fight over Gods. You fight in your familes over addictions, behaviors, territory, materialism. Sorry to say no matter what the problem or issue is you will find a fight whether it is Religion or not!

What I was trying to say is if God design us to be different, we would be clones, and of course no individualism, no personality, no anything, but the same. We choose to fight each other. Not God. Just like your parents probably never encouraged you to fight with your brother or sister. You going to blame it on them why you punched your sister in the eye. It was your choice. Why blame God for actions that men choose for themselves.

1."Why God created nations... 2. ... and religions 3. and why he made them to fight with each other? 4. Does God enjoy wars?

This is really (4) questions.

1. God did not create nations. They came from the children of the sons of Noah. Genesis 10:32; "...the sons of Noah...from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood."

2. Man created religions (plural).In the beginning it was not so. Genesis 3:8; "And they (Adam and Eve) heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." Adam and Eve had fellowship with God. It was face to face. There was no need for religion or an intermediary between them and God.Let us understand what God says true religion is: James 1:26-27. "If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit widows and orphans in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from this world."

3. Man makes religions. Romans 1:18-25. (This passage is too long for this format. Please read this for yourself.)

4. Man makes war. James 4:1-2."Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war with your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask (God).

It is mankinds view on the world around them that really creats the religion. If we believe in free will then people have the right to see the world as they will. They will tend to gravitate towards like minded beings and create their own systems i.e religions and societies. It is the group ego and lack of respect that causes the real wars, combined with greed.

I would not blame God for any or the turmoil that mankind or not so kind has created. I think the human race has to look at the truth and deal with it not and not try to put the blame on God. this is if we have free will.

If we do not have free will, then GOD created humans like play things to do as he pleases and that would be all.

First, God did not create nations and religions..we humans did. Second, the Bible had been transliterated and translated from hebrew then greek then latin then english etc. So we expect that it has a lot of errors. If you will just read the original hebrew bible and understand hebrew, you'll understand what the bible is actually saying. I read Genesis in hebrew translated directly in english, the plot is the same but the words used is different. Also nowadays..lots of new bible translations has been published that confuses people more. Don't judge or assume something as if you have a deep knowledge of it. Don't be immature mate. If you'll ask me why God did not prevented the mistranslations in the bible..I don't know. He has a better understanding and reason than us humans.

You were saying about God being a murderer etc..I'm thinking about it too but as I've said..the bible was transliterated and translated so expect the copies to have errors.

Man created religion. Anyone who learns about the teachings of Jesus will realize he didn't intend on starting a religion. It was he who said the kingdom of heaven is within. Paul (Saul) wrote 2/3 of the New Testament in the Bible and shaped it into an offshoot of Judaism. When Rome made it the state religion years later, it cemented Christianity and its place in history.

If there really is a god, it would surely be greater than anything I have ever read god described as in the Bible, Koran or any other holy book.

The Bible states that God created the Waters, but when did He do this?If you notice in the book of Genesis Chapter 1 it does not state the day in which God created the waters within the 6 days of creation. Between...

Do you believe that there is life on other planets besides Earth and what makes you think so.There are so many schools of thought (religious and secular) about life on earth and other planets. Are we alone in the...

How do some people believe both religion and evolution? Any religious text I have heard or read claims different times for the earths beginning from what evolution claims. Most religion also claims humans were created...